Supreme Court Advisory Opinion Addresses Scope of Governor's and President's Powers Over State Legislation under Articles 200 and 201. Presidential Reference Seeks Clarity on Constitutional Discretion, Time Limits, and Justiciability in Light of Conflicting Judgments.

Advisory opinion under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India on the interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the powers of the Governor and the President over Bills.

The President of India seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on fourteen questions of law regarding the options, justiciability, and procedural aspects of the exercise of powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

Conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court and the absence of explicit time frames in the Constitution have led to uncertainty over the Governor's and President's discretionary powers regarding Bills, necessitating an authoritative interpretation.

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, (2025) 8 SCC 1, had decided certain aspects of the Governor's powers under Article 200, which some parties contend is binding and conclusive, leading to objections that the present reference is an attempt to review or appeal that judgment.

What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor? Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India? In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise? Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law? Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India? Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges? Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force? Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?

The reference is not maintainable as the questions raised have been conclusively answered by the Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, which is binding under Article 141, and an advisory opinion cannot overrule a binding judgment. The reference is an appeal or review in disguise and a malafide attempt by the Central Government to sidestep the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu, without filing a review or curative petition. Reliance on In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal to argue that advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 cannot be used to disturb earlier binding decisions of the Court.

In exercise of powers conferred under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India, the President of India has on 13 th May, 2025 referred fourteen questions relating to interpretation of powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 along with certain ancillary questions for opinion of the Supreme Court. Many of the parties opposing the present reference advanced distinct and nuanced submissions on the substantive questions referred but were unanimous in their opposition to the maintainability of the present reference itself. the reference seeks to raise such questions which are already decided by this Court in earlier decisions (not limited to State of Tamil Nadu) and thus, is an attempt to disturb the findings, and nullify the effect of the judgment already rendered in State of Tamil Nadu (supra).

The President of India referred fourteen questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) on 13.05.2025. The reference was placed before a Constitution Bench on 22.07.2025. Formal notices were issued to States and Union Territories, and they filed written submissions. Hearing commenced on 19.08.2025, with arguments by the Solicitor General, Attorney General, and senior advocates representing various states and intervenors. The Court heard preliminary objections on maintainability and reserved its opinion.

• Constitution of India: 143(1), 200, 201, 361, 145(3), 142, 131, 32